Former Madhya Pradesh CM and BJP leader Saklecha corruption trial to begin in July

The trial of former chief minister and Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader Virendra Kumar Saklecha charged with corruption when holding office during the Janata regime, is scheduled to begin in the first week of July.

But even as Special Judge L.J. Mandlik charged Saklecha under Section 5(1)(e) and Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, late last month, the stage was clearly set for a politically crucial trial. The court proceedings could vitally affect the fortunes of the state's two major parties - the Congress(I) and BJP - as the election draws near. Even so the Madhya Pradesh Government seems determined to leave no stone unturned in its search for a conviction.

It proposes to examine more than 300 witnesses and tender more than 800 documents in evidence, before a ruling is given on the case for which the charge-sheet was lodged in court on February 8, 1983 (India Today, February 28, 1983).

During his two years and seven months in power - first as minister of industry for seven months and the remaining time as chief minister - he is alleged to have accumulated wealth disproportionate to his known source of income.

According to the charge-sheet, Saklecha has acquired assets and incurred expenditure to the tune of a colossal Rs 57.61 lakh. Of this amount Rs 30.66 lakh is said to have been made during his years in power while the remaining Rs 26.95 lakh is a "spillover of assets acquired during the check period".

Virendra Kumar Saklecha: Trial

Further, in a surprise move which went somewhat unreported, on August 4 last year the Special Public Prosecutor, Dharmendra Verma, moved an application in Mandlik's court under the Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance, 1944, against Saklecha.

The prosecution sought and obtained an ad interim order permitting attachment of Saklecha's properties, which are in his own or his family's names. This includes:

fifteen fixed time deposits of Rs 6,35,320.25;

National Development Bonds of Rs 1,22,500;

twenty-eight savings and current accounts of Rs 44,976.51;

Rs 2,25,000, the total investments at nine places towards the bookings of real estate, including commercial flats;

Legally, the prosecution will have to prove that Saklecha, a public servant, in his or someone else's name held property that was not in proportion to his known source of income, whereas the defence, on the other hand, will have to show that he has a satisfactory explanation or perhaps other sources of income not taken into account by the prosecution.

Already objections have been put forward by his counsel, which are likely to prolong the battle. The counsel contends that contrary to Section 5-A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, which mentions the rank of the officers who will investigate the case, there were no documents on record to show that the proper authorisation had been issued to officers working on the case, and therefore the investigation itself amounted to nothing.

On May 11, the court admitted certain documents placed by the prosecution to show that the investigating officers had indeed been authorised as required under Section 5-A. The defence's objection to this on the grounds that the documents be ignored since they could not be admitted at this stage was overruled.

On May 23, Mandlik pronounced that sufficient grounds existed for framing charges against Saklecha who was then not present, to which Saklecha moved an application saying that the process of framing of charges itself be postponed since he had gone in revision to the high court against Mandlik's orders.

His plea was turned down. Sakhlecha then insisted that since the charges were not specific and did not disclose details of the property in his or his family members' possession, and he himself was not given a chance to explain matters during the investigation, the whole proceedings were not in accordance with the law.

Saklecha's political carreer is at stake. Whichever way the court decides the predictable mud-slinging during the trial is bound to affect him. Says an irate Saklecha: "The motive is to keep me occupied and on the defensive. Instead of appointing a judicial commission, as is normal, a police case has been made out directly precisely for this reason. It is violation of existing political norms. But in the public, this has aroused sympathy for me and for the party."

He also happens to be in the unenviable position of having his authority in the party state unit undermined by leader Sunderlal Patwa leader of the opposition. Obviously, it is going to take quite some handling on Saklecha's part if he is going to resolve his problems - legal and political - and come out unscathed.

Do You Like This Story? Awesome! Now share the story Too bad. Tell us what you didn't like in the comments